Refutation of Sh. Nuh Keller´s, "Iman, Kufr & Takfeer" by Maulana Faizan al Mustafa

[chisti-raza]

i struggled hard to keep quiet,

Then, my dear brother, you should have struggled a bite harder. the 12th night approaches so I will ignore you for now!

 

[y_r]

Then, my dear brother, you should have struggled a bite harder. the 12th night approaches so I will ignore you for now!

With all due respect, I agree.

 

[chisti-raza]

Clarification

I have received a clarification on the refutation. It has been sent to me from one of those who have released it with Shaykh Faizaan ul Mustafa Saheb.

This is what I have received and will post it as such:

"The said article was compiled into English by Maulana Faizaan ul-Mustafa under the guidance of Sayyidi Taaj al-Shari’ah. Huzoor Taj ul Shariah is extremely busy in the translation of Ala Hazrat’s books into Arabic. He is also working on the Sharah of Qaseeda Burdah in Arabic. Nuh Keller’s complete article on Iman, Kufr and Takfir was read out to his eminence. He thereafter critiqued it and responded verbally and gave very valuable references from Imam Ghazali, Imam Subki, Qazi Iyaz and Ala Hazrat etc. This was thereafter articulated by Maulana Faizaan. Hence, his name was penned as the compiler. This is also the very same article that was inaugurated at the Urs of Sayyiduna Ala Hadrat (RadiAllahu Anhu) in Bareilly and the article has been completely endorsed by Huzoor Taj al-Shari’ah.

I really hope that people would love reading this masterpiece which defends the Nobility of our Prophet (Peace and blessings be unto him). It gives no room for the refuters like Ashraf Ali, Khalil Anbhethvi and other defamers. It is, in fact, something very useful for Nuh Keller as he should study it very carefully and reflect upon it. He should repent for what he has written in defence of those blasphemous statements. We pray that, may Allah the Most Compassionate guide him to, and keep him on the straight Path.

He has occupied himself in issues that he is completely unaware of, and he has not been given the complete history and facts of these issues. He doesn't even know the language in which those statements were written. However, ignorance is not an excuse for writing something below his stature and in him defending blasphemy. He must read the article and sincerely repent. A Sufi and Sunni scholar can never defend blasphemy."

 

[Abu al-Nasr]

I really hope that people would love reading this masterpiece which defends the Nobility of our Prophet (Peace and blessings be unto him).

It was a good attempt, and may Allah bless those with good intentions behind it. Whoever, a "masterpiece" it is not. We should refrain ourselves from making such emotional outbursts of exaggeration if we want to be taken seriously. Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[Haroon]

Page 82 of Chishti-Raza's attachment in post number 7.

"In brief Deobandis and wahhabis are sailing in the same boat and the author as well is on the boat with them. Both the groups are Kaafirs in the view of Jurists."

Leaves very little room for tawil at what he thinks of nuh keller, and rightfully so.

Still no explanation of this...as a group i have never heard deobandis and wahhabis called kaafirs in the views of jurists or anyone else. Is this something lost in translation? I mean if it said both groups are astray or going towards the hellfire, u could understand, but to say kaafir is very dangerous.

 

[chisti-raza]

“Mufti Muhammad Sharif al-Haq Amjadi, an exegete of Al-Bukhari, and head of the fatwa division [Dar al-Ifta’], al-Jamiat al-Ashrafiya, Mubarakpur (India) writes:

“Mere currency among common folk [úrf] is not sufficient to issue a ruling. Rather, rulings must take the real meanings of words into consideration. Therefore, a person who calls himself a Deobandi, is known by others as a Deobandi, believes these four Ulema-e-Deoband to be his leaders, even labels the Ahlus Sunnah as Bid’atis, but is not aware of the infamous statements of Kufr of these four scholars, then in reality he is not a Deobandi [who is ruled kafir]. Such a person is not ruled as a disbeliever or that performing his funeral prayer is disbelief. And Allah knows best.”[8]

Note by the translator: The reason why the shaykh says ‘he is not a Deobandi in reality’ is because in the fatwas of Imam Ahmed Raza and other prominent Sunni scholars, the tag ‘Deobandi’ is used for a specific group. People should not confuse this to accuse these scholars of indulging in blanket takfir. Allāh táālā knows best. [Translation by Brother Aqdas]”
Reference: http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=3020

Here are two important questions (my opinion anyway for I asked the questions). I didn’t understand it myself, so I decided to send through the questions myself.

I think that this may shed light on this query.
1. What is the difference between the fuqaha and the mutakallimun?
2. Why did Ala Hadrat not declare Ismail Delhwi as a kafir?

http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=7650

 

[maraqialFalah]

This is from the Tahqiqat of Hadrat Faqih al-Asr Mawlana Mufti Muhammad Sharaf al-Haq Muhaddith al-Amjadi (rahmatullahi alayh):

Kufr-e-Sareeh Mutabayyan

This is when the kufr is apparent but has room for a far fetched interpretation of imaan. For example; if a person says "No kaafir will go to hell, only muslims will", this is apparently kufr, it is against very clear verses of the Qur'aan. However, the qaa'il (one who made the comment) can interprete the comment and say "i meant that after one dies he accepts the fact that Islam is the correct religion. On the day of judgement all will believe, so they'll be muslims. They will be thrown into the fire of hell because they weren't muslims in the dunya".

The scholars divide into two groups upon the hukm of the qaa'il of Kufr-e-Sareeh Mutabayyan. The Fuqaha say that he will be called a kaafir, no matter what his intention. However, the Mutakallimeen say that he must not be called a kaafir (must remain silent) until his intention is known.


Isma'il Dehelvi's book "Taqweeyah Al Imaan" is full of Kufr-e-Sareeh Mutabayyan. That is why scholars had different opinions. He was called a kaafir by many scholars such as "Allama Fazl-e-Haq Kherabaadi" (Allah is pleased with him) and others remained silent. Alaa Hazrat has written in his sharah, Al Mu'taqad Al Muntaqad of Al Mu'tamad Al Mustanad after mentioning Isma'il Dehelvi's statements of kufr, that he has become a kaafir according to the mazhab of the Fuqaha but i acting upon the mazhab of the Mutakallimeen remain silent!!!!! This shows that Ala Hazrat has the same view as Allama Fazl-e-Haq Kherabaadi! But for himself chose the safer opinion! This was Ala Hazrat's taqwa!

In the above there was room for Ikhtilaaf, because there was room for interpretation. And from what Ala Hazrat's written, it looks like there is no ikhtilaaf. Someone who calls Isma'il Dehelvi a kaafir is correct according to the Fuqaha's Mazhab and someone who remains silent is also correct according to the Mutakallimeen's Mazhab!

Kufr-e-Sareeh Muta'ayyan

This is when the kufr is apparent and there is no room for interpretation. All the scholars; the Fuqaha and the Mutakallimeen unanimously unite that the qaa'il is a kaafir and he who doubts his kufr is also a kaafir.

As for the other quote from Hadrat Faqih al-Asr Mawlana Mufti Muhammad Sharaf al-Haq al-Amjadi (rahmatullahi alayh), it is the following:

“Mere currency among common folk [úrf] is not sufficient to issue a ruling. Rather, rulings must take the real meanings of words into consideration. Therefore, a person who calls himself a Deobandi, is known by others as a Deobandi, believes these four Ulema-e-Deoband to be his leaders, even labels the Ahlus Sunnah as Bid’atis, but is not aware of the infamous statements of Kufr of these four scholars, then in reality he is not a Deobandi [who is ruled kafir]. Such a person is not ruled as a disbeliever or that performing his funeral prayer is disbelief. And Allah knows best.”[8]

This means he is not ruled a kafir but such a person is a mubtadi (if he holds the above conditions)